- This topic has 65 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Given that the intended readership of the RP is, presumably, racing professionals or those with a serious interest in racing, the point of this article is?
JW is obviously an exceptional individual since, from his comments concerning Sublimity, he clearly possesses the ability to converse with the horse! Did he use the Vulcan mind-meld method, I wonder? "Whoa big fella, what really won the Champion for you?" "Oh, it was all a matter of confidence really James."
Could the fact that the ‘Derby form often appears not to work out’ be anything to do with recent winners not being very good and / or changes to the structure of international racing, as opposed to form cycles?
The retro-fitting of ideas or theories is a good game but one that rarely bears public scrutiny. Whilst, in one way it may be good that the article has sparked discussion here, I do find it nauseating that individuals use such platforms to portray or promote themselves as being innovative, or a ‘thinker’.
Finally, to borrow from a local phrase, if America’s so good, there’s a boat (or plane) there in the morning!
- Total Posts 17716
His articles would be more palatable if he didn’t have the fixation that everything new emanates from the States, and is therefore light years in front of our own thinking.
As robert has already pointed out, form cycles weren’t new in this country 30 years ago, and many have used them as part of their ‘predictive process’ long before JW recently discovered them.
Likewise his assertion:
“Some of the ideas expressed about pace and draw 20 years ago now seem either rudimentary or downright incorrect when read again today.”
assumes major enlightenment from across the water, whereas the truth is, AW racing apart, which mostly wasn’t around 20 years ago, very little has changed.By discussing the subject in a fundamental way – with mention of regression, variance and ratings etc – it highlighted the links between this [give me another word for "concept"] phenomenon and other areas of analytical theory, including so-called "Bounce". I don’t think those links would have been immediately apparent to many.
FWIW, I think it’s good that such topics are getting an airing in the Post these days.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that JW is often refreshingly different and is prepared to stick his neck out, but I sometimes think that he (intentionally?) misses seeing the wood for the trees.
Taking this latest article, and using run-of-the-mill handicappers as an example. Connections get a horse just right, they enter it in a race that they consider suits their horse (the ‘correct’ going and distance, for example) and it wins the race off a mark of 80, say. The official handicapper raises the horse by 6lbs. Connections now ‘know’ that their horse is probably incapable of winning off its new mark because it was as good as they could get it when it won, and conditions were near optimum. Of course they could experiment, but the ‘established’ route for them to take is to wait for its mark to be lowered towards 80 again, at which point it will win because it will be placed to win and it will be in a winning condition. That is the key cycle (for handicappers), as most of us know.
I see no substantial evidence in the form book of horses having WINNING performances that vary by 10s of pounds because of different conditions, with the important proviso that we exclude ‘improving’ types.
I can’t help wondering whether "series of undulations" would be a better "concept" than "cycles".
My own view is that the lifetime form of most racehorses would shape something like a fairly flat and little bit wiggly rainbow.
Could the fact that the ‘Derby form often appears not to work out’ be anything to do with recent winners not being very good and / or changes to the structure of international racing, as opposed to form cycles?
I agree with your sentiment. I also think that most recent Derbys have worked out kinda as expected if assessed properly in the first place.
And I also agree with reet hard (now, there’s a first!) that the influence of US texts on racing analysis is vastly overstated. The thing about Americans is that they do seem to be far more eager than others to share their world vision, whether the rest of us like it or not.
As robert has already pointed out, form cycles weren’t new in this country 30 years ago, and many have used them as part of their ‘predictive process’ long before JW recently discovered them.
Likewise his assertion:
“Some of the ideas expressed about pace and draw 20 years ago now seem either rudimentary or downright incorrect when read again today.”
assumes major enlightenment from across the water, whereas the truth is, AW racing apart, which mostly wasn’t around 20 years ago, very little has changed.Very little has changed but more is common knowledge, unfortunately. Phil Bull said he’d ‘soiled his own nest’ as a result of unleashing Time and Form on an unsuspecting public.
Edge is everything
Nothing to do with biorhythms as far as I can tell.
Nothing to do with Biorhythms as far as i can tell either
My own view is that the lifetime form of most racehorses would shape something like a fairly flat and little bit wiggly rainbow.
I think similar Sean
If there wasn’t such things as ground preferences, distance preferences, draw biases, class preferences etc. Each horse would probably have a fairly level line after it had reach it’s ability ceiling
I can’t help wondering whether "series of undulations" would be a better "concept" than "cycles".
My own view is that the lifetime form of most racehorses would shape something like a fairly flat and little bit wiggly rainbow.
Sean,
Perhaps that could depend on what you consider as form – the weight/class/beaten distance type of form rating or the actual performance real form achieved in each race.
The former remains relatively flat, as each race relies on historical "averaged" performances further averaged upon the horses competing in that race, as much as or more than the actual individual race result. If you keep applying averages then you get flatness and key punting data of difference is lost in the mix.
If you consider performance as the time, pace and speeds achieved in that particular race by the horse as an individual racing under those conditions then the picture changes from flatness to show a far more cyclic and actually prediction-useful phenomenon.
Horse performance is not a single number and never was – it is dynamic.
Winning is not an average, but an exceptional phenomenon."Yardstick handicapping" and an over-reliance on collateral handicapping encourages the idea that some horses are much more consistent than is probably the case.
I also tend to the view that horses vary around a level of ability that is in itself dynamic. I would question just how predictable this is, but the knowledge that it is a factor is useful in itself.
More like waves, perhaps?
I think it rare for things to go full circle, but the little ups and downs are what puts life into racing.
it would be interesting to see the profile for, say, Authorised. At the Derby it seemed that everthing else was just playing a supporting role, whereas at the Arc, he seemed to have plummeted right off the charts!
The dreaded "flatness" has been mentioned and, though I’m loath to bring it up here, I’m reminded of Ginger’s table of percentages, which are all averages.
Still, a bit of flatness never seemed to stop Twiggy, so I shall continue to pedal the wheel of fortune."Yardstick handicapping" and an over-reliance on collateral handicapping encourages the idea that some horses are much more consistent than is probably the case.
I also tend to the view that horses vary around a level of ability that is in itself dynamic. I would question just how predictable this is, but the knowledge that it is a factor is useful in itself.
I have to say I couldn’t agree less with this Prufrock.
For me JimF is much closer to the truth. Racing enthusiasts can learn a lot about horse athletics from the human variety, where performance can be understood by talking to the competitors. Human athletes can peak for one great effort in a World Championships or Olympics but once fully fit and focused their form is very consistent. Why shouldn’t it be?
The more I learn about racehorse form and racehorses the more I marvel at their consistency. Variations of just 1% (one second or about 6 lengths over a mile) are regarded as a major difference. Such variations in form can usually be explained by distance, going, pace, tactics and the human components (training and jockeyship).
Why does one need to look further than this and adopt dubious theories?
As a matter of interest, how do you come to the conclusion that horses are as consistent as you say? What metric do you use?
I don’t, by the way, think that horses are thoroughly IN-consistent, just that few of them are ones that you "could set your watch by" as some handicappers imply. Ripples more than waves, and, yes, a lot of the ripples are explicable to a degree.
And I haven’t adopted this particular theory, dubious or otherwise, because I’m not sure it tells you much more than that there is an inherent level of unpredictability in racing, as there is in everything.
As a matter of interest, how do you come to the conclusion that horses are as consistent as you say? What metric do you use?
Prufrock
The conclusions I have reached are based on twenty years plus of analysing sprint races and results. Using John Whitley’s ratings as a base, but keeping my own ratings. I analyse races in depth beforehand and the results afterwards, including trying to get to get to the bottom of why horses have run better or worse than expected. Repeated video reruns being part of it. The aim, to understand as much as possible about the horses, their characteristics and requirements.
This approach requires specialising. There are just too many horses and races otherwise. In sprints the comparitively large number of runs and limited changes of distance encourage in depth study of individuals. However from Pinpoint, Tribal Prince and other horses I have been involved with I doubt that the conclusions I have reached would be different for other distances.
Unknowns and random factors abound in racing and these send many people off in the wrong direction looking for explanations, theories and systems which are dubious at best.
B
Tribal Prince (8f horse) and Pinpoint (Ire, 7f horse) have never won a sprint race but are just one range step up in distance horses.
The variances of racecourse performance ranges according to Racing Post are:
Tribal Price:
OR 66-77
RPR 41-83
TS 0-88Pinpoint:
OR 85-111
RPR 74-116
TS 28-103Looking at performance range for two top sprinters:
Sakhee’s Secret (6f):
OR 93-120
TS 80-116
RPR 74-126Benbaun (5/6f):
OR 56-115
TS 27 -120
RPR 14 -125It is baffling how you would propose any conclusion that a performance variation of anywhere near 1 second, say a generous about16 pounds, would be exceptional using any of these horses as examples – the variations are huge from race to race. Also, any athlete will tell you that it is difficult to peak more than once in a season and then to hold on to that form. They build up and tail off and repeat the cycle next season.
Also, any athlete will tell you that it is difficult to peak more than once in a season and then to hold on to that form. They build up and tail off and repeat the cycle next season.
Surely that depends on the event? Sprinters run to good times more than once a season dont they? I dont follow athletics much (although competed in that event at school to agood level
) and find that a little hard to believeI havent read this right through, but surely there are plenty of instances of horses hitting their peak more than once a season?
) and find that a little hard to believe- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.